Health Effects of Nuclear Power

Even during normal operations, the 350 nuclear power reactors in the world with a combined capacity of 350000 megawatts are estimated to be causing every year 100 new Bhopals, at 2043 immediate deaths per Bhopal! Applying the precautionary principle, therefore, no more reactors should be commissioned in India or elsewhere. Study the essay below and join the opinion building for a referendum.

Looks like the power-starved Tamil Nadu has to give up hopes
of relief from the yet-to-be-born pride of India’s atomic energy establishment
– the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

With false promises of a commissioning sometime early this
year, similar to the promises last year, Tamil Nadu had relied heavily on the
plant to ameliorate its power deficit of 4000 MW. The plant, however, is in
serious safety-trouble.

In a detailed editorial article in the New Indian Express,
former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Chairman, A Gopalakrishnan has
made a new startling revelation – that the Instrumentation and Control system
(I&C) of the KKNP, that is crucial for the safety of any nuclear power reactor,
is faulty.

Kudankulam nuclear plant.

Simply put, the I&C systems at KKNP, because of their
faulty design and installation, are apparently picking up erroneous signals that
can mislead the safety systems of the Plant, which can lead to accidents.

Sounds really scary!

The reason, says the insider-turned-nuclear-whistleblower,
is the failure of KKNP to adhere to the highest standards of cable-laying,
routing and earthing.

Referring to the 2009-10 report of the AERB, he says “the
cable problems at Koodankulam have a long history.” Even 2010-2011 report
refers to deviations of cable-laying and their justifications. However, the
2011-2012 report is totally silent on the issue.

Subsequently, Gopalakrishnan refers to news reports in 2011
that cited missing power and control cables, which necessitated breaking open
the containment domes of the reactor. “One wonders how such a serious error was
committed by the NPCIL engineers and their contractors”.

The cables apparently were missing for several kilometers
after the dome was completed!

The tireless nuclear-safety campaigner says that this was
probably because NPCIL team proceeded with the I&C work without waiting for
documentation and instructions to arrive from Russia. They relied on their
experience on PHWR (Pressuried Heavy Water Reactors – India’s mainstay in
nuclear power for many years) without realising that PWR/VVER (the new
technology being used in Koodankulam) requirements would be significantly
different.

The delay in Russians transferring the I&C design and
installation is corroborated by the report of the World Nuclear Association.

He charges that “while redoing the work, the NPCIL team is
unlikely to have come close to meeting the Russian design intent or conformed
the installation documents received from them. The origin of the problem lies
in the massive installation error of the NPCIL”.

Gopalakrishnan’s latest expose is yet another shot in the
arm for the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), which has been
fighting a losing, but resolute, battle against the Plant. Even supporters of
nuclear energy are not happy with the lack transparency at KKNP.

Had things been normal, why such an inordinate delay in
commissioning the plant?

“It is most likely that the KKNPP cable system, as completed
today, has not conformed to the norms and standards of cable selection, EMI
shielding, or layout as per Russian, Indian or any other standards.”
Gopalakrishnan summarises.

“No wonder the EMI problem is persisting, because there is
no other short-cut solution other than re-doing a sizable part of the I&C
cabling and its layout in accordance with a set of modern standards, agreeable
also to the Russians. This may take several more months and extensive
re-working, but this must be done in the interest of public safety. As directed
by the SC, the group consisting of NPCIL, AERB, MoEF and TNPCB must certainly
find an acceptable resolution of this problem and include it in their report to
the apex court.”

We have only your wisdom to go by which are not true
facts-that too cheap to meter stuff and all that sort of rubbish regarding
things which are not yet there. Look at the facts(Richard Bramhall of Low Level
Radiation Campaign):

A new review shows the

conventional radiation risk model cannot be used to predict
health effects of

radioactivity inside the body.

On May 22 InTech published a review of

evidence that DNA damage caused by inhaling

and ingesting man-made radioactivity is having serious
health effects. This is

the first time such a wide-ranging review of the genetic
mechanisms of harm from

nuclear discharges has been published in the scientific
literature.

The review, by Professor Chris

Busby, is entitled "Aspects of DNA damage

from internal radiation exposures".

It is in a book called "New Research Directions in

DNA Repair".

It vindicates the belief that incorporated (internal)
radioactivity is more

dangerous than predicted by the International Commission on
Radiological

Protection (ICRP). Much of the information reviewed has been
in the literature

for decades but has been sidelined or ignored.

The evidence shows that ICRP's

use of “absorbed dose” is invalid for many radionuclides
when they are internal.

“Absorbed dose” is based on an external irradiation paradigm
and therefore

averages the energy of radioactive decays across large
volumes of body tissue.

By contrast, some forms of radioactivity expose

DNA to high densities of ionisation. The

review defines and discusses situations where genetic damage
is massively more

likely than from external radiation at the same
"dose"; 1) biochemical affinity

for DNA , 2) transmutation, 3) hot particles, 4)

sequential emitters (“Second Event Theory”), 5) low energy
beta

emitters, and 6) the “Secondary Photoelectron Effect”:

Some substances (for example THORIUM, Strontium-90 and
Uranium) have

high biochemical affinity for DNA so a

large proportion of what is inside the body will be
chemically bound to

DNA . For this reason the radiation events

associated with them are massively more likely to damage

DNA structures than the same dose delivered

externally.

Transmutation, where the radioactive decay of a
radio-element

changes it into a different element (e.g. Carbon-14 changing
to Nitrogen), has

mutagenic effects far greater than would be expected on the
basis of “absorbed

dose”. This has been known since the 1960s but it has been
ignored by risk

agencies such as ICRP, UNSCEAR and BEIR.

Hot particles, especially those which emit very short-range

alpha radiation, have obvious implications for high local
doses to tissue

where they are embedded.

The “Second

Event Theory” concerns the decay sequences of some
radionuclides which decay

to a short-lived daughter. Strontium 90 decaying to Yttrium
90 is an example;

the Yttrium 90 has a half-life of 2½ days so the theory is
that the first

event (decay of Strontium 90) may damage a cell's

DNA which then sets about repairing itself.

The repair process is known to be very radiosensitive and
there is a finite

probability that the second event (the subsequent Yttrium
decay) inflicts

further damage which cannot be repaired.

A good example of a low

energy beta emitter is Tritium. (Tritium is projected to
account for

99.8% of the radioactivity in discharges from the
"generic" design of reactor

planned for the UK). The review compares Tritium with

Caesium-137. The very low decay energy of Tritium means that
delivering the

same absorbed dose as the Caesium requires 90 times as many
radiation tracks

from Tritium. This density of events occurring at low doses
suggests a

mechanism to explain experimental results that show Tritium
is a greater

mutagenic hazard than ICRP would expect.

Elements with large numbers of protons (e.g. Uranium,

Plutonium) absorb external gamma radiation efficiently,
re-emitting it in the

form of very short-range photoelectrons indistinguishable
from

beta radiation. This is known as the Secondary Photoelectron
Effect

(SPE). The review criticizes papers which used Monte Carlo
methodology in

attempts to minimise the importance of SPE after New
Scientist [3]

published a report on it in 2008.

The review examines various

epidemiological studies of Radium exposures which are cited
in defence of the

ICRP risk model. It cites papers published in the literature
decades ago showing

that the Radium studies are fatally flawed because they
omitted many people who

had died (from both cancer and non-cancer diseases) before
the "exposed" groups

were assembled.

The review shows that enhancement

factors arising from the mechanisms above can theoretically
be as high as

10,000-fold. It lists epidemiological evidence where such
enhancements are

required to explain clear effects which are denied by the
industry, regulators

and government on the basis of low average doses. One of
these is the recent

KiKK study which, if the doubled risk of childhood leukaemia
near NPPs in

Germany is caused by radioactive discharges, implies a
10,000-fold error in ICRP

risk estimates. KiKK is at one extreme of such evidence; at
the other, the

Seascale cluster implies an error of 200.

In conclusion, the review lists

key experimental studies which will inform on the issues.

And KS Parthasarathy formerly of the AERB has fantasy and
this fantasy is being given the force of truth fraudulently. Beware the
scamsters who in spite of the negative energy audit want nukes.

And people must educate themselves of the Catch 22 situation
that hydro power and nukes exemplify.

•

Avatar

IAF101 replies to
rashokkumar • 5 days ago

1.Your entire
"Ramayana" is amusing considering that this same
"controversy" has been going for decades without any tangible proof
to back up the claims. Further the whole "Low level Radiation
Campaign" is as credible as Voodoo or Snake Charming based on their
outrageous claims. Low-level "radiation" is a fact of nature as every
school child knows and everyday the "low level" radiation a human is
exposed to has many sources including the sun, radiative particles in that
atmosphere, in the soil, in building material etc. Every time a patient gets an
CT-scan or X-ray they are subjected to "radiation" - so what ???

2.The most
important consideration is the kind of radiation and the dosages a person is
exposed to! Those are the ONLY factors that warrant investigation. This
cock-and-bull "low level radiation" and "absorbed
radiation" nonsense is pure quackery. Even the radium in a wrist watch
gives off "low level" radiation but you don't see this much drama. As
soon as a nuclear power plant is commissioned, these kind of eco-nuts come
crawling out of the ground like rats with their Geiger counters crying about
the low level radiation and claiming they are dying! Firstly, where are the
high energy a-radiative material lying around outside ?? Secondly, why do they
believe that these particles remain in the body while numerous other medical
radioactive substances are flushed from the body on their own ? And lastly, how
do they believe that such "internal" radiation will persist once the
individual is away from this mysterious source of high energy alpha particle
emanating radioactive material ? Magic ??

3.I leave you
with only one point - If these "claims" are true then why have the
US, Japanese, Russian and European Atomic Energy Regulators not mandated the
decommissioning of all nuclear power plants ? Even Japan is building new
nuclear power plants!

At this point First Post closed the discussion for comments!

So the trolls should have the last word!

It is useful to the public to refute the claims of people
like the Avatar IAF 101 so that nukes all over will be forced to be shutdown
now, so that wastes do not accumulate further and the trolls and shills make
all the effort to keep the nuke wastes generated so far effectively from all
life in such a way that living is still healthy, wholesome and thus full.

This caused such an explosion of the cell that
the vibrations communicated to neighbouring cells in such a way as to cause
genomic instability in cell reproduction subtly even several generations of
cells after! Thus dose as an averaging concept was meaningless for internal
emitters. The evidence on the ground regarding internal emitter effects must
form the basis of a risk model. The evidence on the ground regarding women
radium dial painters for clocks sounded the alarm regarding the lethality of
alpha emitters! Radioactive elements new to nature were produced in fission
reactors and uranium mining brought uranium in proximity to life. This uranium
was inhaled and ingested through food, water and air and Jaduguda saw families
where previously cancers, birth defects, infant mortality were unknown spread
widely across the hapless families and UCIL’s ICRP model could not predict the
risk of internal emission because the ICRP model was false. People should read
the full story summarized in ECRR 2010 and the work referred to above to see
the concordance of experience with scientifically realistic risk estimates. It
is truth on the ground around nuclear fuel cycle establishments without
exception that builds up to a realistic risk assessment regarding health
effects of ionizing radiation.Read
the overwhelming evidence of millions of Indian infant mortality in the nuclear
era because of the ingestion and inhalation of ionizing radiation by their
parents! Google search for india infant mortality and nuclear power get an idea
of the random premeditated perfect mass murder in the nuclear era. And the
radiation pollution is growing as nuclear programmes periodically pollute the
earth with their effluents even during normal operation. People should stop
being frogs in the well and vote down the falsehood that the IAEA and AERB, the
ICRP etc are propagating.

Para 3 of the Avatar IAF 101:

See by Google search for Normal operations of nuclear fuel cycle, 1980 to
2012,synergistically complicit in causing 110 million infant mortalities worldwide
and 10 million in India.

Regulators do not see. Neither do they do their homework.
See the energy audit of the indian nuclear programme by Googling and see the
truth: Nuclear energy programmes consume much much more than they ever produce.
That’s because modern civilization’s base is falsehood and destructive of all
life because it is a society of specialists:

In living in this world by his own will and skill the
stupidest peasant or tribesman is more competent than the most intelligent
worker or technician or intellectual in a society of specialists. See
Uttarakhand and cloud bursts and landslides by a nuclear effect of dams?

The nuclear effect of dams caused the triggering of the
Chernobyl disaster(1986), the Narora Fire(1993), the Kashiwasaki Kariwa
damages(2007), the Fukushima disaster(2011). See by Google search The nuclear
effect in causing earthquakes. The catch 22 situation epitomizes within the
cell epigenetic effects and the mutation of humanity and all life by man’s
contraptions. The infinitely precious life or death dealers. Its your
considered choice based on scientific evidence. And science is only semi
prudent. And after doing your best to approach the best design, when there are
huge uncertaintaies regarding nukes, STOP! Adopt a normal way-trees! And
Reforestation and cooperation. Respect Nature not deplete it and explode to
barrenness.
HOW DID YOU ALLOW THIS?
http://www.save-children-from-radiation.org/2013/06/23/stunning-story-from-a-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-worker-interview-by-comedienne-oshidori-mako/

Friday, May 4, 2012

The worldwide nuclear capacity grew
from 135541 MW in 1980 to 376824 MW in 2011. Assuming a 0.1 % Cs137
inventory leak worldwide, the Cs137 leak increased from 481171 Ci in
1980 to 35905664 Ci in 2011. The Yearly Cumulative Indian
Infant Mortality increased from 3295470 in 1980 to 65946980
in 2010. The excess Infant Mortality over that corresponding to the
compound interest rate 2001/1980 grew from 0 in 1980 to 502228 in 2010
and cumulative excess from 1980 to 2010 was 9595642.
Correspondingly the Worldwide Yearly Cumulative Infant
Mortality grew from 45826169 to 1218625914 while the excess Infant
Mortality over the compound interest rate 2001/1980 grew from 0 to
5493023 and the cumulative excess infant
mortality grew to 105519521 in
2010. Note the logarithmic increases for both Indian and Worldwide
excess Infant Mortality from year to year as the cumulative leak of Cs
137 builds up even at 0.1% of the inventory.It is of especial
concern to observe the Infant Mortality rate for 2011 and 2012
considering that Fukushima catastrophe started on 11 March 2011 and is
ongoing. Note
from Figure 7 also that the increment in worldwide population is
drastically significantly going down.Considering Fukushima disaster, the rise in 2011 as extrapolated may not turn out to be true. The 2011 figure based on UN
estimate for
the 2011 population may not turn out to be correct because of Fukushima
ongoing extinction level event, especially regarding Infant Mortality
and still births.

The research on low-dose radiation effects must be combined with the energy audit of nuclear power plants to bring home the insatiable appetite of the nuclear industry for causing unacceptable health effects on all life. The article http://energyauditnuclearprogrammeindia.blogspot.com/ highlights the extremely slowly deployable nature of a nuclear power programme and the damage it causes like the greenhouse effect because of the fossils it guzzles! Simultaneously one must carefully read two really excellent information links: www.euradcom.org for the health effects:2003 Recommendations of the ECRRThe Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes:Regulators’ Edition

Guidance Note No. 2003/1Criteria for "Clearance": Controlling the Release of Solid Materials of Very Low Average Activity for Re-use, Recycling and Disposal. June 2003

The committee regards the ICRP model as essentially flawed as regards its application to exposure to internal radioisotopes. But there is a new development. The ICRP is considering the raising of doses compared to its earlier recommendations(1991). This is because the nuclear industry sees fresh impetus to nuclear programmes for new nuclear capacity in its deluded thinking that greenhouse effects of fossil fuel combustion will be reduced. As the above blog shows, in any n-programme towards introduction of nuclear reactors to supply power, the nuclear programmes are net consumers of energy! And the public are probably to be subjected to more than a tripling of the dose of .3 mSv to 1 mSv per year per person(from 30 millirads to 100 millirads raw dose at least) by these new nuclear industry pressure group based ICRP doses!(See Reference Jean McSorley.2004).

Figure 1 below shows a realistic estimate on what is happening globally based on the book by Gofman(1981):Radiation and Human Health. Based on a whole body dose of 300 rads for one fatal cancer,the 1995 capacity of nuclear plants in India of about 2290 MW will result in about 2110 fatal cancers annually(Table 2).

-> Country Identifications

Figure 1: The country identifications are by numbers which may be referred to in the table below.15 denotes the U.S.A, with a nuclear capacity(N-Capacity) of about 106,000 MW(1991), with annual cancer fatalities due to N-Power of 17300. India,16, had a N-Capacity of 2290 in 1991, with annual deaths of 2110; if India had the N-Capacity of the U.S.A(Number 17 in the Figure above), there would be about 141711 premature deaths per year due to cancer alone, 69 percent of the worldwide total of 204300, up from the present 1 percent by 69 times! See Table 2 for the population density of India and whole body annual radiation exposure. The 300 personrads for an assured cancer death is a conservative figure used by Dr John Gofman in 1981.

(Continued from before the Figure 1)

This may be compared with the whole body radiation exposure dose per year per person(both internal and external) of 0.000672 Rads/y/person in India(Table 2,Column 12). The 1991 U.S.A capacity was 106166 MW for nuclear plants and the corresponding dose to the human being was 0.01954 Rads/y/person. The world total of fatal cancer deaths per year due to normal operation of nuclear fuel cycles was 204300 per year. From Table 1, we see that USA suffers annual premature deaths due to fatal cancers owing to normal operation of nuclear fuel cycles of 17300. India would suffer a figure of annual cancer deaths for this reason of 141711 or 69% of present world total annual cancer deaths due to this reason, if her nuclear capacity were raised to the USA 1991 total nuclear plant capacity of 106166 MW(megawatts). This is more than eight times the US figure of annual cancer deaths due to nuclear power plants for the same total capacity! This is a very conservative figure because we have considered only a 0.1 % leak of only Cs137 isotope inventory out of the more than 280 radionuclides generated by the rods of nuclear fuel! The radiation dose in India would rise to more than 75 times per person per year compared to the present and would be more than double the US dose, per person per year(exceeding the permissible dose due to this one radionuclide!).

But there is much more to this than the above calculation's revelations.

Committment of 204300 cancer deaths per year gives rise, because of the long lived nature of Caesium 137 of half life of 30 years,to the total number of cancer fatalities, which, in 100 years, are expected to be 5000 times 204300 and not 100 times this or it is 1 billion or 5000 Bhopals a year on average!Each Bhopal is counted as 2043 immediate deaths after Bhopal accident.

All this is an exercise in futility because as shown by the energy audit, the nuclear industry is a net consumer of energy: For example in the USA, even forty years into the nuclear programme, the nuclear plants supplied to society only a fourth of the energy consumed by the nuclear industry till that date. Only a miniscule amount of energy consumed by the nuclear waste storage was debited to the energy consumed by the nuclear industry(See the article on Nuclear POWER PROGRAMME'S ENERGY AUDIT for the USA

http://energyauditofnuclearfuelcycles.blogspot.com/

(please paste this address onto the address bar to view the URL)

In the estimation of fatal cancers given above it was assumed that the nuclear reactor’s radionuclide distribution would be same as that which occurred due to atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. For how and what this dual use technology achieved till 1989, see the articleshttp://isisunveiled.rediffblogs.com/orhttp://frozenevolutionofmind.blogspot.com/(please paste this address onto the address bar to view the URL)http://plutoniumaradiumabillionpeoplehitdna.blogspot.com/
(please paste this address onto the address bar to view the URL)

“11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

12. The committee lists its recommendations. The annual total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers. This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment. All new practices must be justified in such a way that the rights of all individuals are considered. Radiation exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable using best available technology. Finally, the environmental consequences of radioactive discharges must be assessed in relation to the total environment, including both direct and indirect effects on all living systems.”

But the ICRP is considering raising the annual dose to a member of the public by an order of magnitude - from 0.1 mSv to 1 mSv!

Citizens please be informed about these facts so that our life is worth living and we exercise our right to life, not death -premature death, involuntarily and for no reason.